Metaphysics--and religion and science--ask what there is, who is here,
how things function, and so on. I will attempt to examine these
issues from what I believe to be an extremely concrete, tangeable
system, such as evaluating your soulmate with calculus. I believe
that all the questions of life are answered mathematically by examining
the perfect exact working system of the running computer
program--being--generated by the unflawed and perfect system "zero."
Nothingness breaking apart.

Much of our discussion may not seem practical, but really, it is very
worthwhile: the issues of how much life exists, how it is sustained,
how things flow, are not just random philosophical ponderings, but are
as practical as things like knowing our next door neighbor, of how many
people populate our planet and how they function together, of knowing
whether there is other intelligent life in our galaxy, of having a
relationship with our soulmate and friends. Just knowing who in
infinity is high, low, or neutral, is as massive as having an
understanding of heaven and hell and purgatory. Knowing how many beings
there are in infinity is as important (if not more) as taking census to
see how many people we share our city or world with. And when we know
the general basic truths behind all that is -- the skeleton of the
universe -- then we can practically apply this knowledge (if our theme
is right) to all the tangeable areas around us, fields of study;
science, religion, psychology, etc, and we will attempt to do just this
once we have a firm grasp of the basics of existence.

Let us start examing the metaphysical consequences by examing what we
should name our subject matter. Philosophy talks about whatever there
is: Being. Our study is of perfect inversions and partial oppositions
within Being, sustaining it's existence, the truth of the universe
lying at the heart of Being. We might call our topic Inverted Being, or
Un-being (not Nonbeing), but if all that is has an inversion, this is
simply another way of saying Being. Consider a square, half white and
black. If we're to study the inverted square, we have respectively
black and white, so taking all within Being, then inverting, we get
generally the same thing as Being. Our study is how Being is sustained
via inversions within itself, the idea of inversion within the square,
so we might then call our subject "Self-sustained Being", and
shall use the prefix un- to discuss an inverted thing, action, feeling,
or idea, within this category of everything, but finally, I have
decided to name our topic something similar, "Symmetric Being."

(Parmenides and others talk of a category called Nonbeing, or sometimes
"unbeing." "Unbeing" is conflicting, as we'll use the prefix un- to
name our inversions, and Parmenides is certainly not talking about
these inversions; our inversions might actually be considered less than
Nonbeing, subtractions from what can't be. Hence if we talk about
Parmenides' topic, we shall use the term "Nonbeing".)

Now how has all of Symmetric Being, all there is, come into existence?
What is there, what has been created, what life exists and how does it
function? As for how anything exists, I present fractals as an example
of infinite complexity coming from extraordinary simplicity, a simlpe
equation, z=z2+c. This generates infinite explorable self-similar
pictures, like our self-sustained reality. And we can apply fractals to
life as well: trees and ferns seem fractal-like, and in greater
complexity, all can be seen as part of a vast fractal. So what could
have remained nothingness, zero, infinite simplicity, has somehow
generated a vast realm of existence (or perhaps been brought into
existence, if we allow some god that can tear this nothingness apart
any way he wishes); our simple rule that love is perfect rape and form
requires un-form has given nothingness the power to do this, to break
itself apart.

Let us evaluate many different possibilities and explore their various
combinations, forming all our possibilities of what is real and true,
keeping in mind the nature of reality is as solid as mathematics in
that exactly one of the permutations of the many possibilities we have
raised is true, is the way things work and function. 2+2 is always 4,
and pi always has infinite digits (only math is truly unchanging,
science can even change from time to time, or from one system to
another). Likewise, either there are infinite souls, or there are two,
or ten, etc. Either infinite joy is possible, or it isn't, it cannot be
both possible and impossible. Our analysis of reality does not include
various possibilities to be believed and hence allow some to have
substance just because some people believe one thing and others
another, like various religions that each have a certain value. Only
one of our realities is exactly true.

As I've said I'll keep many of my opinions on which one this is to
myself (I would do so even if I knew absolutely the answers, especially
then) and allow the reader to evaluate and come to conclusions. But the
reader should appraoch the investigation of what is true the way math
investigates whether a theorem is true or false, which mathemeticians
eventually prove or disprove beyond any doubt, and while there can be
no absolute proof in our investigation, some will undoubedly come to
the correct and true conclusions, whatever they are, and to whatever
extent we can know and percieve them (see our knowledge section), while
others will not.

We'll start our investigation of all possible worlds with the potential
rejection of our thesis. To truly include all systems for the reader to
decide which is true, we will even include the possibility that life
does not actually require perfection inversion, that joy is not rape,
though this is the one absolute belief of mine (that it is rape) I will
admit fully and not hide, allowing the reader to disagree. From
everything we have put forth for the theory of inversions, what would
it mean if life did not require opposition to exist? This is the other
possibility: that it doesn't, that every feeling exists intrinsically,
internally, that does not require any relationship to any other, a
lifelong dream that doesn't harm anybody. That if I were alone, or am
alone, in all of existence, I could still be happy, with no suffering,
and that suffering happens to exist when it very well couldn't. That
all conflict is there by chance, a utilitarian society where everyone
is happy without cost quite possible.

Now how many beings are here? What is life? If life requires inversion,
then we must have at least two souls, two beings, in existence, if we
have any. But is it just two? Is it sometimes none? Could three souls
sustain eachother, or four or fifty? Perhaps the number must be even, a
soul for every un-soul. Could it be just one, if we reject our main
theory that life requires inversion? Could I be the only soul in the
universe, a universe where one person is conscious: you (or me,
whichever is thinking right now)? If so do I stay put or shift around?
Are there uncountable souls and life, or perhaps infinite life? If
there is infinite uncountable life, could there be more? Is there only
a limited infinity of possible souls, with the potential for more that
do not exist, or are things so vast that every possible soul exists?
What does nothingness splitting itself apart create?

If life requires inversion, how are these souls self-sustained? Do we
have a system in which divides itself into pairs, one soul for every
soul who feels that souls inverse, each requiring nothing else to
exist? Or are there groups, limited in number (ten here, fifty there),
that collectively feed off eachother? Or lastly, do all souls
everywhere feed off eachother in a vast equilibrium? Each single soul
requiring every other to exist? Taking some from one, and some from
another. And if life does not require inversion, is there any
relationship at all between one soul and another?

Up until now we have talked of perfect inversions sustaining Being. We
should now consider the more complex glue of partial opposition in our
investigation how things are sustained -- things or ideas opposed to
eachother but that are not total inversions, as a way Being is
self-sustained and self-relating. For instance, hot is opposed to cold.
This is very close to inversion, yet these ideas have similarities:
they are both temperatures, they are both measured on the same
numerical scale, they both describe to what extent atoms are vibrating,
whether a lot or a little. But they are close to inversions; we have an
intuitive feeling, sensing hot and cold, that one is the other's
opposite. We'll extend this to claim that one actually supports, feeds
off of, is much sustained by, the other.

We can have a less polarized example. A dog can be opposed to a cat.
Indeed they may have more in common than not: both are animals, within
our realm of Being, with four legs and two ears each. But they can also
be enemies. One can or torments the other. That they can be opposed is
obvious, but that the opposition (partially) supports the very
existence of life is the new thing, the more subtle yet fundamental
concept.

As for other examples, consider a white vs a black cat, fire vs water
(both elements, but somewhat opposed), high vs low: above (a positive
concept) and below (a negative concept) an average measurement; 33 to
-33, numbers not perfectly inversed because they're both numbers on the
same scale, but very opposed, and 500 and -893 being more opposed
(though the second example is less an example of perfect opposition, as
33 and -33 is a much better example of a partial perfect inversion). A
sport requires partial opposition, but all is played by humans. And
indeed any of our examples that we've raised that provide partial
evidence for our main theory of perfect inversion, are examples of
partial opposition, things that partially support existence.

DEFINING LIFE AND MATTER; LIVING AND NONLIVING SOULS AND OBJECTS

Let us examine what we call "life." We might be tempted to think that
the life that is required to sustain us is not life at all, but less
than life, not worthy of us considering its feelings. Here we'll
introduce a difficult concept that will come up many times and will
help us understand the relationship between inversions: the idea of
absolute value of mathematics. The absolute value of -5 and 5 are both
5, the distance each is from zero, whether one way or the other
(designated by the symbol |5|). So our idea on our side of life, of
consciousness, could apply to both sides, that a tear creates
consciousness in two directions, two additions to nothing. I think,
therefore something else also thinks. Or we could consider this two
subtractions: two things tearing, two things less than nothing: I
un-think, and so does that supporting me.

Consider two opposite colors: orange and blue, both allowed because of
the other. How would we decide if one is existant, and the other less
than existent? The absolute value is that a tear has been created in
both directions. Both a subtraction from nothing, or both an addition
to nothing (what we'll call a subtractive or additive tear), but both
basically the same thing: both a tear. Surely the same thing is going
on in each direction: two existent colors have been created, or perhaps
un-created; both exist, or perhaps un-exist. This could be applied to
feelings: a similar thing has happened in each direction. All is life:
our perception of what's gone on. All is un-life: another point of
view. Or, the reader might disagree and suppose that he is, while his
inverse is in fact less than existing and not worthy of consideration.
Also, we might even say things half-exist. Half of the other. I
half-think, therefore something else half-is.

How about non-life: substance and matter? If existence has created some
number of beings, do we say that it has created innanimate things as
well? A rock or chair as well as a dog or man? We might say that an
object only has existence if it is being thought of or experienced, so
if no one is thinking of an orange, it does not exist, and vanishes
when it passes out of thought (along with the un-orange). Or that it
only exists in the world of the perciever, and not to anyone not seeing
or thinking it. Or we might say that objects could actually exist
independent of thought and life, a chair floating in the middle of
nowhere that a soul might see or think of, or not, existence a mix of
objects and beings. Lastly, we might define the existence of matter to
be anything that can be potentially thought of. That an orange exists
absolutely, always, in that at some point, someone could think of it.
We might distinguish the idea of potential orange from actual (thought
of) orange.

There is also the issue of magnitude. Whether an orange exists vaguely
in the back of my mind, or whether I'm juggling three bright, juicy
oranges in front of me. Or even further, that I am a being composed of
all oranges, in a bright, all-orange planet or realm. We should
consider the range of potentiality and actuality; the extent and
magnitude to which an orange can be thought of, or is thought of. A
sliding scale which something can exist more than at other times.

We might ask, when we see or percieve a dog, is this simply an
inannimate object I am allowed to percieve because something feeds me
the sensation my sensing an un-dog? Or is it in fact living? This is
difficult, especially because of the gray spectrum of living vs
innanimate. A rock might seem completely innanimate; a smart computer,
or yogurt cultures or sperm, or a very young fetus, might all seem
slightly alive; an android, bacteria, or eight-month fetus seem much
more alive, and a human or dolphin or android that has achieved
sentience we consider fully alive.

We have examined a world of souls come into being from nothingness.
Possibly all the souls in existence simply are or aren't, on or off,
that nothing can be alive only somewhat. If this is so, and somewhere
there is a soul fully conscious of being a rock, or fetus, or android,
whatever that feels like, then our percieved spectrum of living vs
innanimate (i.e. a growing fetus, along this spectrum) could be one of
two things (or both): a partial ignorance on our part that that thing
can be alive, i.e. human bias of what's alive (if we totally ignore
that a rock can be alive, then we are fully ignorant of its full,
conscious life, or can be partially ignorant of that life), or a gray
area where we're not certain whether we're thinking of a fully living
or fully dead object: if we allow fully dead rocks (potential or
actually thought of) as objects somehow, and allow fully living rocks,
then our grayness might be our confusion or lack of specification of
whether we're thinking about one or the other.

Now if we allow a universe in which things can actually be partially
alive, the partially aware fetus, we complicate things. First our
spectrum of living vs dead, allowing slightly alive, might correlate
directly to the things that are, in fact, slightly alive. And/or it
could still refer to how ignorant we are of how alive the thing is,
and/or to what extent we're not specifying whether we're talking about
a partially alive thing, or an innanimate object which can never be
alive.

We can extend all these ideas of life and innanimacy to feelings,
ideas, thoughts. Does a feeilng, idea, or thought, not exist at all if
no one is percieving it, or have some existence floating around by
itself when unnoticed, and/or does it exist potentially, and then
sometimes actually? Can an idea have life? And extension to math: are
there mathematical truths that exist apart from any perception of them?
And what magnitude do I percieve an equation? A light thought in the
back of my mind, or posted on a huge blackboard consuming all of my
mental energy?

THE FLOW OF LIFE THROUGH POSSIBLE STATES

Consider the set of all possible feelings of these living beings. Is
everything fathomable thought actualized every moment, the way
Parmenides says? All magnitudes of orange, all unicorns, all people,
across a network of infinite souls, whether we consider objects to
exist outside of thought, and/or to be potential or actual or both?
This seems one thing the simplicity of nothingness is likely to do:
simply create everything. Or does a subset exist? A few unicorns, a
handful of people? Or an infinite handful but still not everyone who
could possibly exist? Could nothingness generate seeming randomness
instead of everything: randomly and chaotically breaking itself apart?

Is there permanence in these worlds? Is whatever exists -- whether one
person (if we break from our thesis), or two, or infinite, whether in a
sea of all states possible, or a random set of states -- permanent and
unchanging? Always just one unicorn, always just one city, always
everything possible? Or does nothingness allow different sets to exist
at different times? Might a galaxy of a quintillion lifeforms pop into
existence for three seconds, then collapse and fall back to
nothingness? Or just a pair of souls? Could there be times when
absolutely nothing is going on anywhere, a void, where only the
potential for future things exist (surely there is not always
nothingness, assuming you or I am aware of something at the moment I'm
typing)? And if I collapse to nothing, am I gone, or will my soul be
recyled to something when I exist again? Might we revise Descartes to
say: I think now, therefore something is now, and hence an un-something
exists now supporting me (though both may vanish)?

Thales believed and Buddhists believe in the immortality of the soul.
Our theory may allow this if there is permanence, or dissalow it if
there is not. Some ancient Greeks considered the cosmos to be immortal
and unending, and so our system may allow this on the grand scale if
there is permanence, or disallow it if there is no permanence.
Heraclitus believed in an everchanging fire; perhaps souls flow around
chaotically, everchanging, or perhaps not. Our theory gives answers to
age-old questions from a new crucial direction, depending on which
aspect of our theory is the way things actually are.

We should make a distinction between possible states or cells, and
souls occupying those states. Our issue is now more complex: first we
have the issue of whether there is permanence of potential states, and
how souls flow between whatever states are possible. Could there be
empty states? If there is an infinite permanence; all thought of, all
the time, then are souls frozen in their place, one for every state,
designated to always be in that state? (Someone always a unicorn?) Or,
do all souls flow between all these states (whether infinite states or
limited), as in the flow of life, and from life to life as
reincarnation, a soul a penguin, then a butterfly, instead of eternal
frozen penguin? Or is there a mix: some souls shifting, some in
permanence? If they do flow, do they flow chaotically, or in
predictable patterns, and can we have any idea of what path we're
traveling? Is our lifepath an illusion?

When we are at a state, is that state new? Have we been exactly there
before? Or can we never step twice into the exact same waters? We might
suspect that in all of infinity, we must have experienced all states,
and will again. Or, we might consider that one state is never exactly
the same as another. If I'm in a pond now, and I change to a different
pond, then a different, then a different, perhaps in the infinite
potentiality of things, the pond will never be exactly the same, always
tiny differences in the water when i return to a similar state, never
the same snowflake, or patches of color on a butterfly; and then when I
apply this to my extended my past and future back or forward, it might
be that I can never find an example of reaching the same state; never
have, never will; perhaps, every feeling I feel completely new in the
entire history of existence, because I can never find an exact example
of it in my infinite past.

A big issue in philosophy is change. When a person's personality or
looks change a little, are they a slightly different person? What if
they become a frog? Does water change to air when boiled away? Is an
acorn the same thing when it grows to a tree? When the tree is cut into
wood? Is a boat a boat as it is slowly dismantled? Our theory has an
answer: one potential state of mind might be similar to another. A
person in a red room might be somewhat similar to a monkey in a purple
room, so that if souls do flow between states, one might flow from
being the person to the monkey. There has been a change, but not
totally. In this case we'd define the entire loss of identity as a
change from one state to the total inverse state, that has nothing in
common. We might also consider that a soul might "blink"
instantaneously to another state, instantaneous change, not requiring
time to flow there.

[There are actually states in which one has less in common than one's
perfect inverse: the greater magnitudes of that inverse. Consider a
black square, the inverted white square of the same magnitude of white,
then a more white square, a lit square, a square as bright as the sun,
and onward, along an infinite path, less and less in common with our
original square, greater and greater loss of identity. This is
interesting to our investigation of change because it shows how
something can change more and more from its state without limit, always
losing more of its identity].

If a soul flows from state to state, consider its path. A soul may take
a direct or indirect path to another state. What would a direct path
feel like? If we were flowing directly to becoming our perfect inverse,
then our world and senses would simply fade to gray, hover at gray for
a tiny moment, and then everything would fade inversely back up;
un-body where I had body, white where there was black, etc, similar to
what happens when we invert a picture in paint or photoshop. Or we
could experience a direct path to random state A and random state B,
which are not perfect inverses (the more likely scenario, considering
out of every state in all of infinity, only one is the perfect inverse,
so we'd likely be going somewhere else, with only an infinitesimal
chance of going to our perfect inversion). We should assume that the
simplicity of this system allows for any state to fade to any other
state, the way a color might fade to any other color in the color
spectrum.

So if I were to change from human to dolphin (let's say I lay down,
face-forward, to make the transtition easier), I would feel my senses
slowly change: my eyes would slowly become dolphin eyes, my limbs would
begin fusing with my body, a fin growing out of my spine, my feet
becoming a tail, water forming around me replacing air, my breathing
closed off as a dolphin only breathes when on the surface of the water,
my intelligence becoming slightly reduced. The half-way point would not
be gray as in heading from form to perfect un-form, but would be like
the picture of a half-disolved human and half-disolved dolphin in
photoshop, every sense half way to its destination. This transition
would be interesting to experience, and can easily be made practical:
perhaps science could someday figure out what configuration of the
human brain would cause it to feel dolphin form, as we're already
capable of feeling this; people experience being animals in dreams.

And of course there are indirect paths: instead of red to yellow
through orange, red shifting to various colors for awhile before
finally reaching orange. Baby to teenager to adult to old man, rather
than just morphing from baby to old man. Perhaps this path is totally
random, nothingness generating chaos, or perhaps it is perfectly
ordered. I'll note the possibility that the path can never be a perfect
transition from one to the other, like never being able to draw a
perfect line between two points, perhaps it is always slightly
squiggly, and in the case of going from state to perfect un-state, we
would not pass through perfect gray, but always slightly around it. Not
perfect half-dolphin half-human, but slightly around it.

Practically, these transitions are our explaination of reincarnation:
animal to dolphin. They're also our answer to evolution, which would be
defined in our theory as a set of certain states that a particular set
of souls occupy for a limited time (conscious monkeys), where the
states shift very slowly over time to other states, and souls drop out
of this set as others come in, in a generation replacing all souls with
other souls (in millions of years, and thousands of generations of
monkeys gone by, the souls occuppying those states are more human),
where some single soul might have traversed the monkey-to-human path in
a single lifetime. If we examine detours, then life may take many paths
from one form to another, as monkeys did not evolve to humans, but both
have a common anscestor which went two ways.

There is the issue of the realization of the path we're traveling. If I
transition from a man in a forest -- believing he has been born from
the womb and will grow old and pass on to death (the soul returning to
nothingness in our theory) or pass on to another life (reincarnation,
moving on to a much different form) -- to monkey in a forest roughly
believing the same things (to a lesser extent), then each perception of
his timeline is off. At every moment in the transition, the man (or
monkey) would believe that he has been born, that time is passing in a
certain way. He would not notice the change going on.

If we flow randomly and chaotically from state to state, Heraclitus'
fire in flux, or even if this change is ordered, then perhaps we have
absolutely no idea which path we're actually traveling; we only
associate with a certain path (a solid lifeline, or even a more complex
idea of life that could go one direction or another, a map of many
paths), which we likely are not traveling, since that is just one path
among an infinite many, but since it could be traveled occasionally,
has substance in some way; our perception of it is not fully false, in
that it is potentially traversed. (Our association with a path can be
thought of as crossing the vertical path horizontally for one moment,
while believing we're following the path). Or could our belief in our
path actually be correct as we think it is?

Another issue is whether we have to flow (over time), or could blink to
a state instantaneously. Whether life is a system of one or the other,
or neither (a nonchanging set of states), or both. Could I be flowing
between limited pain and joy, then suddenly blink to an infinite heaven
or sky of infinite joy (if infinite joy is possible)? Could I blink
from donkey to organic cube? Can a blue ball turn red instantly, or
must it shift there? Could movement in three dimensional space be seen
as a flow from one state (the feeling of being at a location), to the
feeling of being at another location, wormholes allowing a faster
transtion. Or could we simply blink instantaneously at times from one
position to another?

We have considered that existence is Heraclitus' chaotic fluxing fire,
but let us also consider in contrast that life might allow perfect
mathematics: perfect circles, perfect parabolas, perfect sine waves. A
soul might pass in a sine wave from joy to pain to joy to pain, hitting
neutral for that exact moment when it crosses the x-axis, with no
deviation from that perfect path. Or a horizontal line above or below
our x-axis of time and the y-axis of joy/pain: a soul always at a unit
of 44.7 happy. Perhaps such a line could blink to another value, the
blink represented on our graph by a finite vertical line connecting
line A to line B. Perhaps all is perfect mathematics, perhaps the
chaos, or perhaps both. [future insertion of diagram]

COMBINATIONS

We've now raised many possibilities. Let us consider some combinations
that might be true in our search for which is correct. First, consider
that some of our possibilities are completely logically impossible: if
life requires inversion, and there are only two souls in the universe,
always in the same state, then we cannot have every fathomable state
occupied. If we have a donkey and un-donkey with no orange in sight,
then nowhere is there an orange thought of. This set (inversion
allowed, two souls, always existing, with all fathomable states
occupied) is logically impossible and cannot even be considered. It
falls within Parmenides' nonbeing. We might even say that all these
possibilities except the one that is true (the one we're looking for if
we can know it at all) all ultimately fall within nonbeing and
impossibility, but perhaps have some kind of existence that they can be
thought of, even if it is a false belief.

A random example: a universe with exactly seventeen souls which all
sustain eachother, can't exist without eachother, but which can all
blink to nothingness, or reappear, at any given time, and which
function mathematically, not chaotically, spinning in sine waves and
circles and lines, and flow between a limited number of possible
feelings while alive, a set of feelings that is set randomly each time
the seventeen souls pop into existence. Second, a sea of infinite and
immortal beings, some of which are either infinitely happy or sad,
which blink back and forth between the two, some of which are only
partially alive, only partially aware, of that infinite joy or pain,
and other souls which are either partially or fully aware of a limited
and measurable joy or pain.

A third example, as close to the Christian model we can get in our
theory: a system of infinite souls, some of which are created at a
random moment, popping into existence, then spend a finite amount of
time flowing between joy and pain via the free will of the soul, which
then is judged and blinks or shifts to a heaven of perhaps limited, or
perhaps infinite (but surely eternal) joy, or a hell of limited or
perhaps infinite (but surely eternal) suffering. Also, a special three
souls, the trinity, God, Christ, and Holy Spirit, which have always
existed and always will. A God that can tear apart nothingness to
create life (which is perhaps limited by our rule of life is only
possible via inversion, explaining why God must create suffering), and
which interacts with the beings which are alive on Earth for a finite
period before relocation to a timeless heaven or hell.

These examples might sound very theoretical or unpractical -- a game
unapplicable to the real solid world -- but I ask you to consider that
what we're doing is just as concrete and tangeable--if not
more--as any other particular religion or worldview or philosophy.
We're trying to answer the same questions any other discipline
asks such as how we're here, what or who else is there, etc, from
what I believe to be a more solid, mathematical approach than any
other--automatic concrete answers to life that are as solid as
calculus. We're observing all the main answers about life by
examining the perfect exact mathematical system of the vast running
computer system "zero." Nothingness.

THE SUSTENANCE OF OUR UN-SELF

We have raised many possibilities but argued little. Let us argue one
particular possibility that will let us understand our main theme a
little better, if this possibility is true. We have seen that there is
much partial opposition sustaining reality's existence, which we use as
evidence that life actually requires a perfect, absolute inversion to
exist, which is visible only through logical deduction. But how is this
single twin inversion sustained as we flow through time?

The general relationship we've implied so far in saying that the self
has an un-self, is that the self and un-self are two souls in combat.
We've implied that if we walk around for awhile, then something is
un-walking around, feeding us our feeling. But consider a possible
revision: that a soul is our un-self for exactly one moment, that what
we think of as un-self is actually an array of infinite life taking
infinitesimal turns occupying that exact inverse, that state. This
would challenge our previous idea of the un-self being a soul
supporting us for any period of time. A proof is as follows.

If we were to take a pen and draw a scribble on a piece of paper, we
can say this scribble is unique in space-time, for if we tried to draw
the scribble again, we would fail to perfectly replicate it, and again
and again. If everyone in the galaxy drew a scribble, we see no one
would draw the perfect, exact same scribble. If we extend this search
outward to all of infinity looking for a duplicate scribble (start with
us, then the planet, the galaxy, a billion galaxies, etc), we will
never find a duplicate scribble; mine is unique, and in this way my
life path is unique. Applying this to inverted being ('being' the verb,
lowercase 'b', i.e., applying this to the action or nature of being
inverted), we would see that there is no perfect inverse scribble
either -- the white un-scribble on black un-paper. (If we can't find an
exact pi anywhere among a bunch of random irrational numbers, then
certainly we can't find negative pi either).

So if we can't follow the same inverse path as another, yet if we must
have an inverse to exist, a perfect un-self feeding us the feeilng of
scribbling by sensing the white un-scribble and black un-paper, then we
must conclude that someone supports that feeling for only one
instantaneous moment at a time. We can never narrow down a period where
two people share the exact same path, so there is no one being for any
period of time who is my un-self and allows my existence (which we
seemed to imply by our previous mentions of what an un-self is); there
is just an infinite handful of people who each support my existence for
one exact moment. If this is right, it complicates our perception of
the word "un-self"; it is no longer a being, but a set of an infinite
number beings. We might even say "un-selves" instead. I exist because
of my un-selves. I think, therefore infinite things un-think (if this
argument is correct).

As if this weren't enough to reject our previous idea of what the
un-self was, consider furthering the argument as follows. If we can't
find an exact inverse match to our scribble, how can we be aware of the
scribble even for a single moment, if there is no perfect inverse to
support us in that moment? If we look for an exact duplicate of
ourselves, starting by searching the Earth, we find similar people,
with blonde hair and green eyes, but never our exact shade; people
similar to us but never exact; not here, not the galaxy, etc, not even
a twin or clone (The exact same genetic code is like the exact same
recipe for a cake: the cake will undoubtedly come out slightly
different every time). And hence, wouldn't it be impossible to find
anybody exactly unlike us to support our existence at any given moment?
To support our existence.

We've reached an extraordinary conclusion, which seems devistating to
our belief that life requries perfect inversions to exist: If we cannot
find an exact inverse self, then a soul not only cannot be our inverse
for any period of time, but it also cannot be our perfect inverse for
even a single moment. This seems to contradict the heart of our thesis,
that all of existence depends on life having some inverse somewhere,
that partial opposition reveals the nature of reality that existence
has in fact perfectly torn itself apart, a perfect negative for every
positive.

Our solution -- a fusion of the two ideas -- is as follows. Since we
can find someone more and more like us, and hence find an inversion
more and more unlike us, then the idea of the un-self supporting us is
the limit as we approach this unreachable extreme, the sum of all the
infinite closer and closer matches. If we have a sea of irrational
numbers, and I try to find a negative match to mine (let's say
45.08265..), I will find -30.93483, and -44.13092, and -45.08867, and
so on, matching more and more significant digits, never ever the
perfect match, never matching the last digit at the end of infinity.

And if I can only exist because of inversion, and there's no perfect
inversion, then I must conclude I'm sustained by multiple souls at the
same time: dependent more and more the closer we come to my perfect
inverse. Much of my scribble is torn from a vaguely similar inverse
scribble, much of my joy from someone in almost as much pain. And even
more is torn from somone with a closer inverse match to my scribble, or
my feeling. Close to being able to sustain me alone, but not quite. The
sum of all these closer inversions achieving the infinite perfection to
sustain me. This is also a proof that consciousness is self-sustained
by multiple souls, feeds off more than one, in fact infinite, at a
time. (Do we need all of them? Or just many?)

Our definition of un-self was disturbed before by supposing the un-self
was actually an infnite line of souls sustaining us for a moment. Now
that we've shown there's not even that, we can define un-self as that
elusive imaginary extreme of utter perfection that is our exact
inverse, that an infinity of souls come so close to, and sort of reach
collectively, though none exactly hits the target. Then when we say "my
unself is..." we can say we're implying "all the souls sustaining me
pretty much are..." We decided we might use "un-selves" for a set of
inverses which each support us for only one moment, but now we must use
"un-selves" even for a single moment, so if we add time, we get even
more "un-selves:" the set of all the groups who each sustain me for a
moment, combined over time.

If we say I see blue for a moment, we might say say our un-self
(implied: all the souls approaching this imaginary perfect inversion
that does not actually exist), sees orange, or instead we might say "My
un-selves see orange." Then if we add time and say I'm watching a
movie, then the inverse supporting the movie is seen by a changing
group of infinite souls, a bigger group than which sustain me for the
single frame; "my un-self (implied: the unreachable extreme which
everyone comes close to) is watching a movie," or "my un-selves (a
bigger group than "my un-selves see orange") are watching a movie. Or
we could define un-self as some random soul who's more or less
traveling our inverse path, and not worry about the precision of things.

Also note that some of these souls might sustain me for a longer time
than others. If I'm watching the movie, and some inverse soul somewhere
is watching a different inverse movie, but with the same inverse I'm
watching, then that soul helps sustain me for only those commercials,
while some other soul might be watching almost exactly the inverse of
what I'm watching, sustaining me for a longer period of time.

This has all been one theory, one proof. One may of course argue
otherwise. We might consider that our example of reaching further and
further out to find greater and greater perfection actually reaches its
destination at the end of infinity; consider putting all souls in
existence on the surface of a sphere; we have a starting point, and as
we work outward adding up souls, we can only traverse an infinitesimal
amount of the surface, an insignificant number of souls, so we will
never reach the exact opposite point on the sphere, but we can see it
does indeed exist.

Or we might consider that the assumption that the way things work
around us in our world applies to all infinity, is false. We might
theorize there are actually infinite lives living my exact life, that I
am only unique in the chaotic realm I appear to inhabit, and hence
infintie lives living my exact un-life. Not just un-self but infinite
perfect un-selves, when a moment ago we had none. Even if we have just
one in this counter-argument, the issue of sustenance also asks, is
this one sufficient to sustain my existence by itself, for the moment
it's my inverse (or forever, if it can travel my exact path), or do I
still play tug with infinite other souls? (If we believe the previous
argument that no inverse exists, we might still want to know for
understanding's sake, that if that inverse did exist, would that be
enough to sustain me? Or would I still need a bunch of other souls?)

We might challenge the assumtion that everything behaves chaotically.
Perhaps there are souls traversing perfect mathematical sine waves for
all eternity, requiring perfect inverse sine waves, each sustaining the
other completely. Maybe the chaos and multitude of my life is an
illusion, and I'm simply one of the only two souls in existence, each
the others inverse, stuck in a particular state forever by chance, or
perhaps flowing through all possibility, but remained linked as perfect
inverses. Or this could be even if there are other souls as well: an
infintie pairing. Perhaps this is just an infinite truth outside the
world -- the pairing with a twin -- that there's no evidence for in the
world we see around us (no pairing, no marriage, seems to last forever;
there doesn't even seem to be anything that could follow the same path
for a second, based on our argument of searching for such a a pair of
scribbles. But maybe this just exists outside of the world around us)

So if there is some sort of mathematical perfection outside our world,
this is one way our argument could be wrong. But if things do behave
chaotically as they appear to, consider this line of logic as an
objection: two souls traversing their random, sporadic paths. One heads
downward, from a joy level of 20 to 10, and the other heads up, from 5
to 15, at roughly the same rate. They must cross at about 12.5, and
there should be an exact moment of crossing, one exact point. At this
point, they would occupy the exact same joy/pain value. Here we have an
example of two souls sharing the exact same value.

So our argument of searching the world around us for the same
irrational number and not being able to find it, seems false now.
Perhaps this limited example is not equipped to handle the weight of
infinity. If we were to freeze a moment and start examining the
joy/pain value of random souls, one by one, we would get these random,
infinite, irrational numbers. Surely we would never, ever find an exact
match. Yet counting souls like this also never even makes an
infinitesimal dent in the infinite souls out here. It would be like
trying to count the points on a line, a stretch of infinite points. If
we start counting numerically at x, we won't even traverse an
infinitesimal span of all that can be traversed, and will never reach
the value we're looking for, but it could exist far outside the reach
of a finite search.

And if two souls can have the exact same value for a moment, surely
they can have the same inverse value for a moment (exactly pi vs
exactly negative pi). By this argument, perhaps indeed a perfect
inverse does exist. If this is right, we must again ask: is this the
only soul required to sustain our existence, since we now have a
perfect opposite to sustain us. And if it didn't exist, could we still
be sustained the sum of other souls in the area?

Arguments and speculation could continue. The reader should debate and
try to figure out the truth of things, as one could as well debate any
other possbilities of what is that we have raised; we have only
examined one issue of the possibilities that nothingness may or may not
generate, what may or may not be the case.

JOY, PAIN, NEUTRALITY

After much discussion, let us turn to a simplicity: the black and white
of everything we've established, the joy and pain of things (we just as
easily could have started at the beginning with this issue: asked
questions about the nature of joy and pain, and then colorized by
extending our black and white polarized ideas into complex reality).
We'll ignore the details of the feelings like fear or nostalgia, and
only be concerned with the most basic result of these feelings or mixed
feelings (even with mixed feelings we can still be more happy than
sad): whether we're high or low or neutral. This simplification can
allow to tackle some issues without complications. For instance, if we
agree on intuition that there is not infinite joy or pain, then we'll
probably agree there is no infinite guilt or embarassment, no
infinitely large piece of matter, etc. If we say no joy lasts forever,
then probably no feeilng or form or idea lasts forever either.

As for joy and pain, how much time does one spend in each? Can one be
permanetly in joy for all eternity, requiring someone to be in infinite
pain for all eternity? (unless of course the permanent immortal
infinite joy is sustained by different souls taking turns feeling a
momentary, temporary infinite pain sustaining the joy, as in our
argument that a single soul cannot traverse the same path as its
inverse). Is there in fact any infinite pain or joy at all? Surely we
can't accelerate there, or this would take forever; but could we blink
there instantaneously? Or could one exist in infinite pain or joy from
the dawn of eternity, not requiring that acceleration? Or is infinite
joy just an absurd idea?

We should consider the quantifiability of joy and pain: can we measure
our joy/pain level like we measure the temperature or our height? (If
we can, we can probably also measure hatred, sickness, innocence,
fear). If we can measure them, is it an infinite scale? Maybe we can
label any joy or pain with the number one, designate it as a distance
of one from the neutral line, allowing any multiple to be possible, a
trillion times that joy or pain, or a google, that reached state itself
then being able to be designated a measurement of one unit above
neutral. If all states are occupied, then surely every level of joy and
pain is occupied. Or if limited states, then only some levels.

When are we neutral? We are tempted to say that we're feeling neutral
or blah at times for a period, but we should surely consider that
perhaps we're just not high or low enough to notice the value. Zero on
an x- or y-axis is a single point, so it makes sense we're only neutral
for only an infinitesimal moment whenever we cross from joy to pain or
back. Or could we stop on neutral like a car would decelerate, then
accelerate up or down again? If we're in pain and follow a sort of
parabola, an arc, towards joy, could we possibly peak exactly at
neutral? Perhaps there's a perfect mathematical sine wave peaking
always at neutral, or perhaps there is no such perfection in life.
Could we blink instantaneously to neutral if blinking is possible?

If being neutral is indeed an infinitesimal moment, then who is neutral
now? Is it such a tiny thing that often no one is at zero, and
sometimes one or many people are? Could there be neutral traffic:
sometimes no one, sometimes one or two, sometimes thousands, sometimes
infinite? If there are a limited, countable number of souls in
existence, how does pain and joy and neutrality fit in? If there are
three souls sustaining eachother (whether that's all there is, ever, or
whether it's just a subset of a bigger picture, or whether there just
happens to be three souls in all of existence just for a limited
duration), perhaps one must be neutral, one high, and one low. Maybe
the one neutral remains forever. Maybe they blink instantaneously to
random values, keeping a certain balance: if two are a little up, the
other must be way down. Or could they all be neutral. If things shift
and flow, perhaps the up and the down could cross where the permanent
neutral soul is, while the up and down switch instantaneously to down
and up.

If there are infinite souls in existence, a strong possibility is that
only one soul is neutral at any and every given instantaneous moment.
Always one; never none, never two, never many. Consider that along the
y-axis of joy/pain, we have a vertical line of infinite values, on
which zero is just a single infinitesimal point. This seems to
correlate with the infinity of souls in existence we have, where a
single soul is just a point in this infinite line or sea of souls. With
this parallel, we might conclude that all the values on the line are
occupied; every high, every low, only one soul per value, because we're
distributing infinite souls over an infinte spectrum, in an infnite
auditorium of exactly enough seats, with one infinitely special chair,
only room for one person in all of infinity to be exactly neutral at
any given moment.

We might support this with the following argument. That if I have an
infinitely sided die, I have an infinitesimal chance of getting the one
special number. But I have infinite rolls, so if everyone in infinity
rolls the die, perhaps one and only one will win, and this lottery
occurs every single moment, always someone different occupying the
special seat, until, an infinite serious of moments later (a nanosecond
is still an infintie series of moments), we occupy the seat again, the
next time we cross from high to low or low to high.

If this is correct, a problem arises. If there is only one soul neutral
at a time, then what is the perfect inverse supporting it, since we
only exist because of perfect inversions? Shouldn't that be neutral
too? Note that neutral is not the same as feeling total nothing. If we
were nothingness, we wouldn't need an inverse to exist, since existence
is created only when nothing tears apart; only when we deviate from
nothing do we require a soul or souls to sustain our additive existence
and feel our opposite. I can still have a body and be in a room and
feel emotionally neutral, still requiring an un-body and un-room to
support me. So if I'm neutral (not nothing), don't I need an inverse?
We might conclude now that our guess about all souls filling up the
auditorium of possible values was incorrect. Perhaps there are, then,
at least two souls neutral. And if two, why not more? We might guess
that there are in fact infinite souls neutral, but still an
infinitesimal spec of infinity, a line of souls on a whole plane of
souls, or a plane amongst a space of souls.

But let us return to our picture we drew of a universe in which we
cannot ever find exact duplicates. If this is right, and I am 0.0, then
I could never find another soul who is also exactly 0.0, hence we'd go
back to the premise that I'm the only soul ever neutral for the moment
I'm neutral. The problem we just faced of how we can be the only
neutral soul when life requires some perfect oppossite is now solved,
the way we solved the problem of how we can exist at all if there is
not a total perfect inverse of us: the inverse is the sum of all the
values that come closer and closer to the extreme, in this case, the
closest values to zero. The inverse is not feeling 0.483..., nor
0.0093..., but the soul at zero is sustained by the infinite handful of
souls closer and closer to zero. And our issue of how the soul can be
perfectly neutral -- let's say neutrally looking at a yellow square --
without any neutral soul looking at the purple square -- is answered by
the soul somehow pulling that feeling out of the combination of all the
near-neutral souls that sustain it.

But then our refuting of the never-find-duplicates argument might
apply. If two souls can be at the exact same value, then it's likely
more than one soul can be neutral at a time. And if there are two, then
perhaps there are even an infinite handful. This handful would be like
the relationship between a point on a line. Consider an infinite
scribble of souls flowing through existence. The black and white of
their existence: how high or low they are, are demonstrated by an x/y
graph. A soul is only occasionally going to hit neutral (whenever it
crosses from high to low or low to high), but there are so many souls
that in fact infinite souls hit that same point at that time. But
infinitely more souls are hitting the points on every single value of
the y axis. Infinite at 3, 4, pi, at any exact irrational number, every
digit in the value's infinite set of digits perfectly matched.

To better see this, consider a 3D graph. x-axis of time, neutral being
a horizontal plane 1/2 way below the graphs infinite sky and 1/2 way
above its ground, y of joy/pain (vertical), and z-axis of some
attribute that distinguishes many souls from others. At time t0 on the
x-axis, we have a whole plane of all souls, existing in one
infinitesimal moment compared to the unlimited space of all souls at
all moments. The souls at any given joy/pain value are lined up on a
horizontal line on a on the plane at the value on the y-axis, including
the line at zero (half crossing from high to low, half from low to
high), showing the infinitesimal ratio of all souls to the tiny handful
of souls at neutral, or pi happy (high apple pi in the sky?) , etc, a
single point on the line being a single soul, itself infinitesimal in
the arena of all souls at its joy/pain value. [future diagram]

CONCLUSION

We've now explored a large metaphysical set of what the universe might
be, debating a few issues in detail, keeping in mind only one of them
is the way things actually are. Most of this has been theory that has
rarely applied mundanely to the world around us, but very well could
be. We have founded our investigation of what is on a system that can
re-create other standing issues and sciences and fields, by itself. For
instance, our system has already given a clear explanation of why
suffering exists, why there is something and not nothing, how
reincarnation (using metaphysical theory instead of religion) and
evolution (using theory instead of evidence) might be possible, without
needing any support from the existing theories.

We've begun to form a theory of metaphysical God, that we will discuss
in detail in our section on sustained philosophy of religion: God might
be defined as a being who could consciously break apart nothing into
whatever forms he chooses, based on our only rule, or could create
anything at all if we even discard our basic rule. Or, we might look at
nothingness itself as a god, since it generates all there is in the way
a god might create all there is. We're already starting to attack
issues of free will vs predestination: Is my path through what could
have remained nothingness determined by Being (noun), or based on
choice? What is the nature of the soul vs the body and mind? How does
our system, as we work out and explore the details, form other fields?

We have brought into view the skeleton of the universe, which we can
proceed to put flesh and blood on, the body of existence. We have
examined the foundation of a skyscraper, got its blueprints. We have
reverse engineered a computer, and can build our own on our fundamental
knowledge of silicon. Einstein said he wanted to know the mind of god,
that the rest were details. He tried to unify physics, deduce
everything from a basic principle. We in a sense have tried to do both,
knowing god's creation -- nothingness's creation -- of all that is
based on the infinite simplicity -- generating infinite complexity --
of the tearing apart of zero, the foundation unifying a vast endless
fractal of life. And we can apply this theme to practical matters.